A blog about media and technology. Sorry, no cat GIFs.

Tag Archives: politics

If you’ve ever been on Twitter, I’m willing to bet you’ve lamented (or cursed, depending on your temperament) the social network’s lack of an edit button. Once you hit send on your tweet you can’t bring it back to fix a typo, punch up a joke or soften a harsh statement. Your only recourse is to delete and start over.

But in my time following technology news and dealing with computers, I’ve learned one rule that applies to just about any situation.

Nothing is as easy as it should be.

As Saqib Shah wrote at digitaltrends.com, the addition of an edit button to Twitter raises other questions. Should there be a limited time available to edit a tweet? What about a change log so you can still see all the iterations of a particular tweet? What happens if you accidentally retweet an older version of a tweet that the author didn’t want to circulate? Or should a user just be able to edit infinitely, cleaning all objectionable tweets in his/her timeline without deleting them?

Right now, if you want to change your tweet you have to delete it and rewrite it. It’s a pain, but as tasks go it’s fairly low on the annoyance scale. The key is to check what you write before you post it.

We can look to older technology for a lesson in how to handle this. Take typing classes. When I learned how to type on a typewriter, we weren’t allowed to correct our mistakes. Speed mattered, and fixing typos slowed you down. So you had to keep typing, errors and all. The point was to teach you to type quickly and accurately.

If you don’t have a forgiving environment for making mistakes, you learn not to make them. The many, many typos and ill-conceived tweets on Twitter show that not everyone has learned this. But if Twitter becomes editable, users run the risk of becoming more sloppy, both in thought and execution, because they will be able to fix it later.

I would certainly use an edit button on Twitter if it became available. But I’d rather see the company crack down on trolls. Hate speech is so much more disturbing than spelling mistakes and broken hyperlinks.

In case you didn’t hear, the FBI announced on Monday that it is dropping its lawsuit that sought to force Apple to help it unlock the iPhone 5C of one of the San Bernardino, Calif., terrorists. In withdrawing the suit, the feds said they found a way to get into the phone without needing Apple to devise a way to hack its own products.

So, yay?

The Justice Department originally sought Apple’s cooperation based on a 1789 law that it said gave the government the authority to compel a private company to assist with the investigation. Apple CEO Tim Cook publicly turned down the government’s request. The vacating of the order lets Apple off the hook, meaning the tech company doesn’t have to engineer a backdoor into its iPhones that, Cook argued, would open a door that could never be closed again.

In that respect, the end of the court case is good news. The thought that a company could be ordered by the government to create a security flaw in its own products is a chilling one. Keep in mind, too, that it’s not just governments who want to gain access to the smartphones of private individuals (though that is a scary thought all by itself). So do hackers, criminals and other people with less savory motivations than making the world safe for freedom and democracy.

But the end of the court case has some serious drawbacks for American consumers and anyone concerned about privacy at all:

The government could ask for a tech company’s help again

A court ruling in the FBI vs. Apple case, either way, would have set a precedent for how the feds ask for this kind of cooperation in the future. Now there’s no precedent, so there’s nothing to guide either side when this issue comes up next time. And of course there will be a next time.

The amount of privacy that U.S. citizens should expect is unclear

A seemingly unbreakable privacy setting on the iPhone has now been broken — allegedly. Does this mean that Americans should assume their phones can be hacked by the FBI at any time? Is this a power the feds will only use in extreme circumstances? (I readily concede the San Bernardino shootings count as extreme circumstances.) This question could have been litigated in open court. Instead it remains unanswered and will remain so, since the FBI won’t talk about how it broke into the shooter’s phone.

How the government can break through security firewalls is unknown

One question that Apple still has for the government is: How did you do it? In the courts, they (and we) could have gotten an answer. Now that the case has been withdrawn, the FBI won’t say how it finally broke into the iPhone, let alone whether or not it found worthwhile information.

At least Apple didn’t have to make its iPhones vulnerable to hacking, that the Justice Department still had to do the dirty work. But that’s a small comfort when we now know that there’s no such thing as foolproof privacy protection.

Then again, maybe there never was. That raises the ultimate question: How much privacy are you willing to trade for convenience?

It’s a question that, no matter what would happens next in this debate, probably won’t find an answer in federal court.

Few situations are more socially awkward than the release of data on users of the Ashley Madison website, a place where cheating spouses go to philander. While I have no sympathy for any of its members, the first celebrity name on the list of hacked members is the most delicious: admitted child molester and “family values” activist Josh Duggar. Generally I’m against the theft of data and malicious hacking in general, but in this case the exposing of such a prominent hypocrite is oddly satisfying. Plus it’s hard to feel sympathy for a network of dishonest people.

It wasn’t just cheating spouses who had a bad week on social media. Read on:

Timothy Bright: The St. Johnsbury, Vt., man threatened the state’s Department for Children and Families on his Facebook page. According to the Burlington Free Press, Bright confessed to writing the post and was charged with disturbing the peace using electronic communication. His arrest comes less than two weeks after a social worker in Vermont was fatally shot.

Clemson University’s football team: The school’s football players won’t likely commit any social media fails this season because they aren’t allowed on social media at all. They have been banned from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and all the other social networks. It’s a self-imposed ban, which is laudable, but it deprives them of one of the main communication channels among young people today. Wouldn’t it be better to teach them how to use social media properly? Abstinence-only policies rarely work out.

This week’s social media winner is a sort-of repeat from 2014.

You. That is, you are if you took part in the Ice Bucket Challenge, a social media phenomenon that raised millions for research to battle amyotrophic lateral sclerosis — Lou Gehrig’s Disease. Scientists at Johns Hopkins University said that the more than $220 million raised actually helped speed some studies and contributed to a big breakthrough in the research, according to the Washington Post.

Fake news, false assumptions and a phony presidential candidate dominated the social media fails this week. Let’s recap the week in bad taste, starting with an obvious choice:

Donald Trump: The Republican presidential candidate will probably tell you he’s the best Twitter user ever in the history of the world. But even he must admit that his tweet on Tuesday that featured The Donald, an American flag and some World War II re-enactors in Nazi uniforms with the message: “We Need Real Leadership.”

The Trump team demonstrate some real leadership after outrage inevitably ensued: The tweet was deleted and blamed on an intern.

Real leadership.

The Thai government: Autocrats have paper-thin skin, it seems. This week a military court in Thailand sentenced 10 people to prison for insulting the monarchy. Hassadin Uraipraiwan uploaded some videos to YouTube that were ostensibly critical of the country’s leadership. A Facebook group then shared the videos. All the people involved were given jail sentences. Though two of the 10 received lesser sentences, the prison terms show that the military-led government — whose job is to protect the monarchy — makes no distinction between those who create content and those who share it. The case also shows that freedom of speech is always in danger.

The stock market: Bogus stories have real-life consequences. Twitter briefly enjoyed a stock spike this week thanks to a fake story reporting the social network had received a buyout offer. This wasn’t a “Nasdaq falls for ‘The Onion'” hoax; according to the Associated Press, the fake news story scam appears designed to do exactly what it did: create chaos in the market.

The Oklahoma GOP: Think before you post. I’m not sure the people in charge of the Oklahoma Republican party’s Facebook page had that in mind this week when someone wrote a post on the page comparing the state’s welfare recipients to wild animals in national parks. The post was taken down and state party chairman Randy Brogdon said the post was intended to demonstrate the cycle of government dependency. He apologized for any “misconceptions that were created,” according to the AP. That’s a new twist on the non-apology apology.

For what it’s worth, the Oklahomans caught up in what Brogdon considers a “cycle of government dependency” are mostly the old, children and the disabled.

We have a clear winner for social media this week: NASA.

The space agency had a good week, as its New Horizons satellite got close enough to Pluto to take some breathtaking pictures. This being 2015, those images were posted to Instagram (presumably with #nofilter). If you don’t follow NASA on Instagram, you’re missing out.

What do we know now about Millennials and news? We know they get more political news from Facebook than from local television. We know they are less interested in political news than Generation Xers or Baby Boomers. And we know that they trust Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News the least among most major news outlets. For what it’s worth, those three ranked at the bottom of trusted news sources for Gen Xers and Boomers alike.

In at least that respect, we don’t have to worry about the kids of today.

The Pew Research Center’s latest report, “Millennials and Political News,” breaks down a recent poll that explores where the three age groups get their news, and whom they trust.

It turns out, the level of trust is largely uniform across all three generations. Of 36 news sources cited, only 11 showed major differences among Millennials, Xers and Boomers.

They care less about political news, that’s true; but that’s been true for a long time. Gen Xers didn’t care about political news when they were in the 18-29 age group. Even though they care about it less, they see more political news on Facebook — by far the dominant news platform — than older age groups.

If you’re concerned about the “bubble” effect — only reading political posts on Facebook that aligns with their world view — don’t worry about the kids. The survey showed Millennials see more diverse political viewpoints on Facebook, while Boomers see the least.

As with everything in these troubling times, the issue is a partisan one: President Obama came out in favor of strong rules enforcing net neutrality. Therefore Republicans hate it. Ted Cruz called it “Obamacare for the Internet.” Ajit Pai, one of the two GOP commissioners on the FCC, warned that Internet taxes are coming. Sen. John Thun, R-South Dakota, vows to stop these “monopoly-era regulations.”

Of all the issues before us that are needlessly partisan, net neutrality has to be at the forefront. It doesn’t impose a tax on consumers; it doesn’t dictate content on the Internet. All it does is keep the Internet the same level playing field it has been since its inception.

The Associated Press has a great description of what net neutrality means for consumers:

Net neutrality is the idea that websites or videos load at about the same speed. That means you won’t be more inclined to watch a particular show on Amazon Prime instead of on Netflix because Amazon has struck a deal with your service provider to load its data faster.

The Internet has always been a first-come, first-served place when it comes to content. No one had to pay a premium to deliver their content to users ahead of someone else. It’s that kind of environment where startups can thrive (or fail) based on their merits, not because they have to pay a premium just to get in the game.

Furthermore, net neutrality supports the status quo. It’s ISP giants like Comcast and Verizon who want to change the rules, by charging content providers a premium for faster access to consumers. As for Sen. Thune’s crack about “monopoly-era regulations,” it’s worth noting that in many areas across the country, broadband providers are a monopoly. If you don’t want to pay the cable company’s prices for high-speed Internet, good luck finding an alternative that’s just as fast. The days of competitive ISPs went the way of dialup service.

There are those who fear “price controls,” but the FCC has said that rates for Internet access won’t be subject to preapproval. But customers will have an avenue for complaining about unfair costs.

Net neutrality should be a bipartisan issue. Liberals should like it because it preserves the free flow of information (OK, EVERYONE should like that), and conservatives should like it because it allows the free market to flourish online. Government shouldn’t be in the business of throttling the exchange of ideas, but neither should corporations.

As far as the voters are concerned, this is an issue with common ground. A University of Delaware poll in November — AFTER President Obama came out in favor of strong net neutrality rules — showed that 81 percent of Democrats and 85 percent of Republicans oppose Internet “fast lanes.”

Today’s ruling was an encouraging step in preserving an open Internet. But I have faith in our Congressional leaders, and possibly the courts, that they can undo all of this common ground that the voters have on net neutrality.

It’s been a tough week on social media for four people and a TV station. Sen. Rand Paul and three criminals all had a bad week, but the state of Hawaii had a good one. Take a look:

First the five social media fails:

Sen. Rand Paul: The Kentucky Senator and 2016 presidential hopeful made a Pinterest page for his presumed White House rival, Hillary Clinton. The page, before it was deleted, included boards labeled “Inspirational Quotes”, “Power Couple” and “White House Remodel.” Because, you know, girls like to redecorate. Pinterest took the account down, because impersonations violate the social network’s terms of service. You’d think Paul would have less sexist ways of criticizing Clinton. It’s worth noting he didn’t create a fake Pinterest page for Ted Cruz.

Derrick Newbolt: The 22-year-old man allegedly held up a pharmacy and a smoke shop in Bloomington, Ind., and was caught when police looked up his Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts and found photos of him holding the same gun described in the robberies.

The teen accused of stabbing three sisters in Pontiac, Mich.: Police say a 17-year-old girl stabbed three people, one of whom was hospitalized, as part of a dispute fueled by Facebook. I don’t know what was said, online or off, but I’ve seen enough idiotic posts on Facebook to know that nothing said there is ever cause for violence.

Brennan Clay: TMZ.com reported this week that the former Dallas Cowboy posted an “inspirational message” on Instagram Jan. 27. That’s not a fail until you consider that Jan. 27 was also the day that Clay was arrested on charges of domestic violence. What did he have to say on social media that fateful day?

“Just remember the second you decide to give up could be the second God is turning your situation around.”

Maybe he should have given up on beating his wife. Just a suggestion.

KIRO-TV: The decision to label something “breaking news” is tricky and, in this world of 24-hour news cycles, always a temptation. But the Seattle-based TV station stretched the definition to the non-breaking point this week when it sent out a “breaking news” item about: tourism in Seattle. If we get to the point where every news item is “breaking,” then nothing really is. Credit Matthew Keys with busting them initially on this bogus breaker.

This week’s social media winner:

The state of Hawaii. The managers of the 50th state’s state parks have tried everything else to keep people away from a dangerous waterfall. Eight people were killed and more than 50 injured at Sacred Falls in a 1999 landslide but that hasn’t kept hikers away. So the state uploaded a video warning people to stay away, and has shared it on Facebook, Twitter and Vimeo. The scenery is beautiful and the warning is stark: Keep out of Sacred Falls park.

A man leaves after buying the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo newspaper as people queue up at a newsstand in Paris, Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2015. (AP Photo/Christophe Ena)

At last, the publication that few Americans heard of before last week has returned. Charlie Hebdo, the satirical weekly that was the target of a brutal terrorist attack one week ago, is back on the newsstands. The surviving staff promised to publish on time, and they delivered. More than a million copies were printed, and they sold out quickly.

If you don’t live in France, you can still find a copy of today’s historic edition. Prepare to pay for it.

Freedom of the press is great, but freedom to make a quick buck is an even more powerful force.

The edition is not available on Amazon or the Charlie Hebdo website, but you can purchase one through eBay. Print versions are selling for between $70 and $200, give or take, but there is one copy autographed by the artist Ric that has a Buy It Now price of $14,000.

Some sellers offer pdf versions of the magazine, with prices varying from a buck to $40. Sometimes shipping charges are included, which makes me wonder: Why would you pay to have an email sent with an attachment?

The Jan. 7 attack on the magazine’s offices killed 12 people, including a bodyguard of the editor and a police officer outside. The group ISIS praised the carnage but support for the victims — and for freedom of the press — was otherwise nearly universal. Cartoonists drew poignant tributes. Millions marched in Paris the night of the attacks, and again on Sunday.

The only glimmer of good news out of the attack is that the staffers of Charlie Hebdo were determined to get back to work. Their success in printing the next issue on time amidst their grief is further testament to the ability of strong people to stand up to cowardly bullies who respond to ideas with bullets.

So who has a couple grand to lend me so I can buy a magazine in a language I can’t read?

Councilmen Stratton Marmarou, Dennis Sterner and Francis Acosta are apparently absent from Facebook and Twitter, from what I can tell. (If I’m wrong, please send me the link.)

Marcia Goodman-Hinnershitz has a Twitter account, but it’s protected, so the only people who can read her tweets are those she allows to follow her. Her Facebook page is public, though she doesn’t post much about what she’s up to in City Council.

Jeff Waltman has tweeted once; as far as I can tell, he has no public Facebook page.

Why does all this matter? It matters because these are public officials who have a duty to keep in contact with the people who elected them and who pay their salaries. I’ve used this as an example before, but Newark’s former Mayor Cory Bookershowed how well politicians can use social media to communicate with their constituents.

Some local politicians, like Berks County Commissioner Christian Leinbach, get it. More of them should.

In the next week I’ll look at how our county officials are doing on social media.